5. Because there was only one prophet (Ma

lachi) after the last reformation of Nehemiah, until the Christian æra, and he does not predict any future deliverance of the Jewish nation; thus leaving us to conclude that the predictions of former prophets were fulfilled, as to their literal import, on the return from Babylon, and the subsequent prosperity, and, therefore, had no

reference to the present dispersion. 6. Because the doctrine is encumbered with

certain difficulties, which are not necessary to be encountered, because obviated by an interpretation more simple and more in harmony with the general tenor of the word of God, than that upon which the

said doctrine is built. The difficulties are of three kinds. (1.) Arising from the magnitude of the

events necessarily implied. (2.) Arising from the ordinary course of

things. (3.) Arising from the apparent contradic

tion to Scripture testimony which the

doctrine involves. 7. Because the doctrine is fruitless of good, and

prolific of bad effects on the public mind. in general, and on the minds of the Jews in particular.

CONTENTS.

LETTER I.

The inquiry not one of mere speculation, but important.—The doctrine, if

true, may involve important duties; if false, may lead to serious evils.-

Apposite remark of Oliver Cromwell.-If the Jews are to be distinguished

on their conversion above other converts, it must be on the ground of some

distinct relation to the Divine Being. The question of this distinct relation

examined.—Their distinct relation to God only that of rebellious children.-

This relation not necessarily favourable to the doctrine.- Whether their

distinct relation involves any distinction in their future history, or suggests.

any special duties to Christians, questionable.-If their future distinction

in any way be questionable, those extraordinary distinctions insisted upon

by some persons in the present day, much more so.—To suppose it before

their conversion preposterous; after their conversion contrary to the spirit

and the letter of the Gospel.

• pp. 13-20

LETTER II.

The subject more fuily entered upon.-Three hypotheses proposed for inves.

tigation.-1. The restoration of the Jews to Palestine; their pre-eminent

dignity ; personal and visible reign of Christ amongst them, and the con-

version of the Gentiles by their instrumentality.—2. Their restoration to

the Divine favour, with some peculiar tokens of national distinction,

without assuming what.-3. Their conversion merely, without any dis.

tinguishing proofs of Divine regard.—The first hypothesis objectionable,

because unsupported by the New Testament.-If the doctrine be true, this

absence of New Testament support very remarkable.-Not a satisfactory

answer to say the New Testament Writers had more interesting and im-

portant topics to engage them; nor to say that when the New Testament

was written the Jews were not yet dispersed.-Duties of Christians in

connexion with the doctrine if true.--If true, the New Testament defective

as a rule of practice.-The words of our Lord, “ until the times of the

Gentiles," nothing in favour of the doctrine.--Paraphrase of His predic.

tion.--Also the words,“ Behold, your house is left unto you desolate,"

&c.

.. pp. 21-38.

LETTER III.

The literal application of the Old Testament prophecies to the future circum-

stances of the Jewish nation, incompatible with the genius of Christianity.-

The character of the Jews as the Church, not as a favourite nation, the

specific object of prophetic allusion.- Importance of this fact.-The pro-

phets moved by“ the Spirit of Christ.”—The dispensation of Christianity,

the fulfilment of God's covenant with Abraham.-" The times of the

restitution of all things,” what it refers to.-The Divine object in selectivg

the Jewish nation.--Inference.- New Testament allusions to the Old Tes-

tament language, and the use made of those allusions, against the doctrine,

-Testimonies of John the Baptist, Joseph of Arimathea, Simeon, Anna,

Zacharias, Gabriel, St. Panl, James, Peter, and Christ himself. pp.39—56.

LETTER IV.

New Testament allusions to Old Testament language continued.–Testimonies

of Christ and his Apostles on the subject continued.-" I appoint unto you

a kingdom, &c. that ye may eat and drink, &c, and sit on thrones judging

the twelve tribes of Israel,” considered and paraphrased. The doctrine

wholly unsupported by the New Testament.—No answer to say the spiritual

nature of the kingdom Christ came to establish is admitted ; but that dis-

tinct from this, the restoration of an earthly kingdom is promised to the

Jews.The existence of this distinct promise unproved.The kingdom

promised exclusively spiritual, the more perfect fruit of principles already

developed, and involving all that Jews or Gentiles need.-Probable reason

why the language of prophecy is so liable to a secular construction,

pp. 57—66.

LETTER V.

Three objections to the doctrine, besides those already stated.- Observations

on some particular Phrases—Mountain-All Nations-No more-For

• pp. 67-73.

ever...

LETTER VI.

Observations on particular Phrases continued-Zion-Jerusalem.-The

opinion that Jerusalem will become a resort for all nations, inconsistent

with Reason, incompatible with Scripture, and impossible in Fact.— Israel

- Jew--Children of Abraham-Zerubbabel-Joshua.

... pp. 74-85,

LETTER VII.

Observations on some particular Prophecies.—Isa. xi. 11; 1x. Ixv. 17, &c-

Jer. xxxi. xxxiii.-Haggai.--Zechariah.-Expected destruction of animal

ferocity, &c.--Remarks on the return from Babylon.--No reason why the

Jews should be distinguished, on their conversion, above other nations.-

Their loss of national character probable.-Objection answered. pp. 86—105.

LETTER VIII.

An objection to the doctrine, that the phraseology of Malachi, the only pro-

phet after Nehemiah's reformation, does not favour it.-The double reference

of Prophecy strengthens this objection.-An objection to the doctrine, tbat

it is unnecessarily encumbered with difficulties.-The difficulty of accom-

plishment merely, admitted to be no objection. Why it is an objection in

the present case.-Simplicity of interpretation to be preferred.—Remark of

Lord Bacon.-The line of argument pursued defended against a probabl

objection.

pp. 106-113

LETTER IX.

The difficulties with which the doctrine is encumbered stated. The present

political aspect of the world less favourable to the doctrine than imagined.

-The writer not to be charged with disbelief, or want of confidence in the

divine power, for urging the objection of difficulties. National existence

of the Jews after conversion improbable. Why so.-An error to suppose

their continued existence the result of a Divine decree, or their national

preservation miraculous. The doctrine supposes distinctions between Jew

and Gentile which Christianity bas destroyed. --There are Prophecies that

seem directly opposed to it. .

• pp. 114-129

LETTER X.

That the doctrine is held by the Jews themselves, and by most Christians, no

sufficient ground for receiving it-why. The continued existence of the

Jews, as a nation, to the present time, nothing in favour of it-why.-

Probable effect of their conversion before the Gentiles. The opinion that

they will be converted before the Gentiles contrary to Scripture; and

consequently, the notion that the Jews will be chief agents in the conversion

of the Gentiles. The continued national existence of the Jews no proof of

the Divine intention to employ them as agents in the conversion of the

Gentiles. Their scattered condition no proof of such intention.-More

reasonable, as well as more scriptural, to expect the Gentiles will be

converted first.-Promised effusion of the Spirit on the Jews. No ground

to expect they will be converted by any other than ordinary means.

Personal reign of Christ--Millennium-both unscriptural doctrines.-Re-

marks of the late Rev. John Cooke, of Maidenhead, on Dr. Gill's descrip-

tion of the Millennium.

pp. 130-141.

LETTER XI.

The second hypothesis examined, that the Jews will be restored with some

peculiar tokens of the divine favour without assuming what.-Remarks on

Romans xi.-The posteriority of their conversion to that of the Gentiles

just what might be expected.—Their sudden conversion unlikely.—Their

national existence, supposing them to be converted after all other people, as

improbabile as it would be if converted sooner.—The third hypothesis

affirnied as conclusive of the whole matter, tbat the Jews will not be dis-

tinguished after their conversion from or above other people of the

Christian community.

• pp. 142-148.

LETTER XII.

An estimate of the doctrine in its tendencies.-Hints to such as are zealously

affected towards the House of Israel.-Official and public sanctions of the

doctrine injurious to the Jews.The employment of divinely appointed

means for their conversion urged.-The principle of the Bible Society,

and the avoidance of all disputable points recommended. Conclusion,

pp. 149–163.

APPENDIX,

Containing a Summary of what the Writer supposes to be the Scripture

testimony concerning the future destinies of the world and the Church.

pp. 167–178.

LETTER I.

Do the Scriptures predict the future. Restoration

of the Jews to Palestine?

The inquiry not one of mere speculation, but important.—The

doctrine, if true, may involve important duties; if false, may lead to serious evils.-Apposite remark of Oliver Cromwell.- If the Jews are to be distinguished on their conversion above other converts, it must be on the ground of some distinct relation to the Divine Being.–The question of this distinct relation examined. Their distinct relation to God only that of rebellious children.—This relation not necessarily favourable to the doctrine. - Whether their distinct relation involves any distinction in their future history, or suggests any special duties to Christians, questionable.--If their future distinction in any way be questionable, those extraordinary distinctions insisted upon by some persons in the present day, much more so.- -To suppose it before their conversion preposterous; after their conversion contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Gospel.

January, 1828. MY DEAR FRIEND,

In conformity with your wishes, I shall endeavour to investigate this question, which, I am aware, presents itself to your mind, as it does to my own, not as one of mere speculation, but, as possibly involving, in one view of it, very important

B